5,416
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mental Health Law and Legal Rights (14:IV)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mental Health Law and Legal Rights (14:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 20:25, 19 October 2016
, 20:25, 19 October 20162016 update
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
(2016 update) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== B. Employment/Disability Income == | == B. Employment/Disability Income == | ||
If a person cannot work because of mental health issues, the person may be entitled to employment insurance, disability benefits, or CPP disability benefits, or WCB benefits if the mental illness is work related. For information on CPP disability benefits, see [[{{PAGENAME}}#D. Canada Pension Plan | Section IV.D: Canada Pension Plan]], below. Be aware that there are strict time limits involved when applying for these benefits. | If a person cannot work because of mental health issues, the person may be entitled to employment insurance, disability benefits, or CPP disability benefits, or WCB benefits if the mental illness is work related. For information on CPP disability benefits, see [[{{PAGENAME}}#D. Canada Pension Plan | Section IV.D: Canada Pension Plan]], below. Be aware that there are strict time limits involved when applying for these benefits. | ||
If a person is hospitalized in a psychiatric facility because of an injury at work, he or she may be eligible for WCB benefits. Please contact the Workers Advisory Group through CLAS for more information. | If a person is hospitalized in a psychiatric facility because of an injury at work, he or she may be eligible for WCB benefits. Please contact the Workers Advisory Group through CLAS for more information, or refer to Chapter 7, Workers' Compensation. | ||
== C. Employment Insurance == | == C. Employment Insurance == | ||
Individuals either voluntarily or involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility may still be eligible to collect Employment Insurance benefits. However, the ''Employment Insurance Act'', SC 1996, c 23 is a very complicated piece of legislation, detailing numerous requirements to qualify for benefits (e.g. number of hours worked, previous claims, unemployment rate, etc.). If a | Individuals either voluntarily or involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility may still be eligible to collect Employment Insurance benefits. However, the ''Employment Insurance Act'', SC 1996, c 23 is a very complicated piece of legislation, detailing numerous requirements to qualify for benefits (e.g. number of hours worked, previous claims, unemployment rate, etc.). If a person is denied benefits, it is best to consult the Act directly as a first step or to contact a lawyer knowledgeable in the issues (e.g. CLAS). Be aware that there may be strict timelines in applying for benefits or appealing a denial of benefits. For more information, please consult Chapter 8 Employment Insurance. | ||
== D. Canada Pension Plan == | == D. Canada Pension Plan == | ||
| Line 52: | Line 50: | ||
Sections 7 (the right to liberty), 9 (the right to protection against arbitrary detention) and 15 (the equality provision) are particularly relevant to protecting the rights of the mentally ill. Rights protection provisions may also be applicable, as well as s 12, which concerns cruel and unusual punishment. | Sections 7 (the right to liberty), 9 (the right to protection against arbitrary detention) and 15 (the equality provision) are particularly relevant to protecting the rights of the mentally ill. Rights protection provisions may also be applicable, as well as s 12, which concerns cruel and unusual punishment. | ||
''Fleming v Reid'' (1991), 82 DLR (4th) 298 (Ont CA) dealt with the impact of s 7 on provisions of Ontario’s mental health legislation. Mentally competent involuntary patients refused treatment despite their doctors’ opinions that it would be in their best interests. The Court held that the section of Ontario’s ''Mental Health Act'', RSO 1980, c 262 that allowed a review board to override the refusal for treatment made by a substitute consent-giver of an involuntary patient based on the patient’s prior competent wishes violated the right to security of the person and was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. However, the effect this case will have on BC’s legislation is yet to be determined. (See also ''Starson v Swayze'', 2003 SCC 32.) | ''Fleming v Reid'' (1991), 82 DLR (4th) 298 (Ont CA) dealt with the impact of s 7 on provisions of Ontario’s mental health legislation. Mentally competent involuntary patients refused treatment despite their doctors’ opinions that it would be in their best interests. The Court held that the section of Ontario’s ''Mental Health Act'', RSO 1980, c 262 that allowed a review board to override the refusal for treatment made by a substitute consent-giver of an involuntary patient based on the patient’s prior competent wishes violated the right to security of the person and was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. However, the effect this case will have on BC’s legislation is yet to be determined. (See also ''Starson v Swayze'', 2003 SCC 32.) | ||
In ''Mazzei v British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric)'', 2006 SCC 572, it was decided that review boards have the power to issue binding orders to parties other than the accused. | In ''Mazzei v British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric)'', 2006 SCC 572, it was decided that review boards have the power to issue binding orders to parties other than the accused. This power is usually used on the director of a hospital, party to the proceedings, to whom the review board cannot prescribe a specific treatment, but can impose conditions regarding treatment. It is obligated to ensure that treatments are culturally appropriate. In the ''Mazzei'' case, there was conditions for drug and alcohol rehabilitation appropriate for his first nations ancestry. | ||
A recent Supreme Court decision, ''R. v Conway'', 2010 SCC 22 (Conway) responds to the issue of whether or not the Ontario Review Board (ORB) has the authority to grant remedies under s 24(1) of the ''Charter''. The challenge was brought by Paul Conway, an individual found not responsible by reason of a mental disorder in 1983, who argued that his treatment and detention violated his ''Charter Rights'' and entitled him to an absolute discharge. The Supreme Court developed a test to determine whether an administrative tribunal is authorized to grant ''Charter'' remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to s 24(1), the ORB is a “court of competent jurisdiction” but an absolute discharge was not a remedy that could be granted by the ORB under the particular circumstances. Ultimately, the Conway decision affirms the application of the ''Charter'' to administrative tribunals but limits the scope of available remedies under s 24(1) to those that have been specifically granted by the legislature. | A recent Supreme Court decision, ''R. v Conway'', 2010 SCC 22 (Conway) responds to the issue of whether or not the Ontario Review Board (ORB) has the authority to grant remedies under s 24(1) of the ''Charter''. The challenge was brought by Paul Conway, an individual found not responsible by reason of a mental disorder in 1983, who argued that his treatment and detention violated his ''Charter Rights'' and entitled him to an absolute discharge. The Supreme Court developed a test to determine whether an administrative tribunal is authorized to grant ''Charter'' remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to s 24(1), the ORB is a “court of competent jurisdiction” but an absolute discharge was not a remedy that could be granted by the ORB under the particular circumstances. Ultimately, the Conway decision affirms the application of the ''Charter'' to administrative tribunals but limits the scope of available remedies under s 24(1) to those that have been specifically granted by the legislature. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 61: | ||
== K. Legal Rights of Those in Group Homes == | == K. Legal Rights of Those in Group Homes == | ||
Throughout the greater Vancouver area there are many “group homes” run by and/or for mentally ill persons who do not need to be confined in a provincial mental health facility. These homes, run by groups such as COAST and the Motivation, Power, and Achievement Society (MPA), are governed by the ''Community Care and Assisted Living Act'', SBC 2002, c 75. Foster homes and group homes of the provincial government fall under different Acts: the ''Child, Family and Community Service Act'', RSBC 1996, c 46 and the ''Hospital Act'', RSBC 1996, c 200. | Throughout the greater Vancouver area there are many “group homes” run by and/or for mentally ill persons who do not need to be confined in a provincial mental health facility. Additionally, "Supportive Apartments" are a new tool government has been using. These homes, run by groups such as COAST and the Motivation, Power, and Achievement Society (MPA), are governed by the ''Community Care and Assisted Living Act'', SBC 2002, c 75. Foster homes and group homes of the provincial government fall under different Acts: the ''Child, Family and Community Service Act'', RSBC 1996, c 46 and the ''Hospital Act'', RSBC 1996, c 200. | ||
These types of homes have some interesting interactions with the ''Tenancy Act'', in that they may or may not be covered on a case by case basis. There is no definitive answer at this point - individuals in group homes with tenancy issues can contact CLAS or seek other legal help. | |||
Municipalities often place restrictions on the location of group homes. A Winnipeg bylaw requiring a minimum distance between group homes was struck down for violating s 15 of the ''Charter'' (''Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v The City of Winnipeg'' (1990), 69 DLR (4th) 697 (Man. C.A.)). | Municipalities often place restrictions on the location of group homes. A Winnipeg bylaw requiring a minimum distance between group homes was struck down for violating s 15 of the ''Charter'' (''Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v The City of Winnipeg'' (1990), 69 DLR (4th) 697 (Man. C.A.)). | ||